Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining the state-dependent return values: build phase and file count while building, the finished app when built, and live URLs once deployed. It also notes the build_app id dependency, though it does not cover polling or error states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three tight sentences and front-loads the usage trigger before explaining returns and the prerequisite. Every sentence contributes directly to selecting and invoking the tool, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, fully documented by schema and annotations, and has an output schema for return values. The description still supplies the key when-to-use context, the artifactId dependency, and a concise overview of state-dependent returns. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single artifactId parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including that it comes from build_app or search_artifacts. The description repeats the build_app source requirement but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: checking the status of an app build or deploy. It distinguishes this from sibling action tools like build_app and deploy_app by describing the status-checking role and the artifactId prerequisite. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear trigger: 'Use this when the user asks how their app build or deploy is going, or whether it is live.' This is strong contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a competing sibling to prefer instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.